Akbar

[Nafees]

Its my opinion that - by trying to establish new religion 'Din-e-elahi', he went away from the basics and spirit of ISLAM religion.

 

[Flintlock]

The identifier can be the dynastic name, the specific name of the conqueror etc. Even now we see the same "implication" and insensitivity when the term "Islamic terrorism" is used. While the terrorists may say that they are committing their atrocities in the name of Islam, Islam condones nothing of the sort - and simply calling them "Terrorists" should suffice.

Lol...I'm sure lots of people would disagree with that one!!

The fact is that the bombers themselves consider it an Islamic act...hence the word Islamic terrorism.

The Maoists in India are called "Maoists", because they themselves say that they are following Maoism. Whether this is the "true" Maoism or not, I don't know. But there you are.

However, simply calling it "Terrorism" would leave us with nothing!! What terrorism? Which terrorism?

The spread of Islam, even if brought in by conquerors, is a different "invasion" than the physical one by the emperors, what Hinduism was or was not capable of facing ideologically is different (and its own inherent weakness or strength), that is what evolution is all about.

I'll agree with that one.
Most Hindu converts to Islam were either Sufis or those who converted to attain a privileged position etc. etc.

However, we aren't talking about the spread of Islam, but about Islamic conquests.

What any emperor king did is not necessarily reflective of his religion - that is an extremely fallacious argumment, and pretty much exactly the same as saying that a terrorist kills a bus load of children because of his "belief system". Yes an individuals beliefs do govern his actions, but are the beliefs of those invaders consonant with Islamic teachings? If in Hinduism atrocities of one caste against another are expressly allowed, then I would blame Hinduism. But if Hinduism does not command any such thing, then it must be a corruption of the individuals commiting the atrocities.

OK, firstly, the beliefs of a suicide bomber are indeed based on Islamic teachings!! Those teachings are being preached by Radical mullahs!!

Now, whether those teachings are true Islamic teachings or false teachings, depends on who is interpreting the scriptures.

After all, both sides claim to be the real Islam. So how will a non-muslim decide who is right?
For him, both are Islam isn't it?

Hinduism did have a tendency to encourage inter-caste violence, because it gave a superior status to some castes and inferior to others. It might have not expressly ordered the violence....but the fault still lies with the hindu beliefs of the time right?

Look, if a serial killer says that he is inspired by Christianity, then we can understand hat he's a nutjob.
However, if a whole section of Christians start committing murder in God's name, then we will have to blame Christianity for it!!

The tendency to suicide bomb isn't an individual corruption!! Its a whole ideology!!

I have no problems blaming a particular "school of thought" (Taliban Islam) for being intolerant, because its scholars and adherents specifically accept and practice their obscurantist views, but I do not then say that Islam is an intolerant religion.

Hmmm....I think its a question of which side of the fence you are sitting on.

For a Taliban guy, his islam is the true one.

For a moderate guy, his islam is the true one.

For an outsider, they are both islam!! Therfore, Islam for him is intolerant!!

But you'll agree that the intolerant form of Islam isn't a recent thing. Its been a part of islamic history, and is one of the reasons why Islamic armies were such a potent fighting machine!!

No we do not agree on that. Monotheism has less to do with it than the absolutist interpretations of Islam.

But won't you agree that Monotheistic religions, but virtue of their monotheism, predispose themselves to being interpreted in radical ways?

 

[Nafees]

In my view Aourongjeb is one of the best emperors in Mughal Dynasty.

 

[Flintlock]

In my view Aourongjeb is one of the best emperors in Mughal Dynasty.

Nafees, what, according to you, makes Aurangzeb the best emperor?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Lol...I'm sure lots of people would disagree with that one!!

That doesn't make their opinion any more sound.

The fact is that the bombers themselves consider it an Islamic act...hence the word Islamic terrorism.

The Maoists in India are called "Maoists", because they themselves say that they are following Maoism. Whether this is the "true" Maoism or not, I don't know. But there you are.

However, simply calling it "Terrorism" would leave us with nothing!! What terrorism? Which terrorism?

OK, firstly, the beliefs of a suicide bomber are indeed based on Islamic teachings!! Those teachings are being preached by Radical mullahs!!

Now, whether those teachings are true Islamic teachings or false teachings, depends on who is interpreting the scriptures.

After all, both sides claim to be the real Islam. So how will a non-muslim decide who is right?
For him, both are Islam isn't it?

Look, if a serial killer says that he is inspired by Christianity, then we can understand hat he's a nutjob.
However, if a whole section of Christians start committing murder in God's name, then we will have to blame Christianity for it!!

The tendency to suicide bomb isn't an individual corruption!! Its a whole ideology!!

Hmmm....I think its a question of which side of the fence you are sitting on.

For a Taliban guy, his islam is the true one.

For a moderate guy, his islam is the true one.

For an outsider, they are both islam!! Therfore, Islam for him is intolerant!!

Anyone in the world can say that they believe in XYZ, and form a group and do something completely contrary to what XYZ advocates, but that does not mean that XYZ is now represented by a small minority that has perverted the original vision. Your argument is even less valid, with respect to the spread of Islam in South Asia, when you consider that it would be hard to determine what kind of Islam was exactly practiced in those days.

Your outsider conveniently picks the prejudiced form of Islam to represent Islam, hardly a logical choice when confronted with two, and the majority being of the "un prejudiced" kind. I would suggest that the outsider get to hear the arguments of both sides and make an educated decision, otherwise it makes sense to go with the majority.

The tendency to suicide bomb may be an "ideology", but the question is whether the act is sanctioned in Islam - obviously the guy blowing himself up is a nut case, so why should his claims about "religious inspiration" be believed? It would once again be logical to study the source of his claims to determine if he was correct in making that assertion or not.

Hinduism did have a tendency to encourage inter-caste violence, because it gave a superior status to some castes and inferior to others. It might have not expressly ordered the violence....but the fault still lies with the hindu beliefs of the time right?

Depends on the kind of "superiority" you are talking about. I would have to read and understand the texts of Hinduism that deal with the subject to see what the context is.

But you'll agree that the intolerant form of Islam isn't a recent thing. Its been a part of islamic history, and is one of the reasons why Islamic armies were such a potent fighting machine!!

No - again I disagree - The initial violence was survivalist in nature. It was a minority facing extinction under a ruthless majority. Someone better versed in Islamic history after the initial years could better answer the remainder of your question. The culture of the Arabs was a nomadic, warrior culture - and that is perhaps where you are confusing the two.

But won't you agree that Monotheistic religions, but virtue of their monotheism, predispose themselves to being interpreted in radical ways?

I don't agree because you haven't explained why.

 

[Flintlock]

Anyone in the world can say that they believe in XYZ, and form a group and do something completely contrary to what XYZ advocates, but that does not mean that XYZ is now represented by a small minority that has perverted the original vision. Your argument is even less valid, with respect to the spread of Islam in South Asia, when you consider that it would be hard to determine what kind of Islam was exactly practiced in those days.

I can't say what type of islam was practiced by the majority.

But what I can definitely say, is that the Islamic raiders did take a lot of pride in narrating their exploits in the land of the infidels.

I'll try and get some quotes written by the Islamic raiders to justify my statements.

Your outsider conveniently picks the prejudiced form of Islam to represent Islam, hardly a logical choice when confronted with two, and the majority being of the "un prejudiced" kind. I would suggest that the outsider get to hear the arguments of both sides and make an educated decision, otherwise it makes sense to go with the majority.

Therein lies the power of perception.

The moderate muslims rarely get their voices heard.

Whereas the radical ones obviously get the most press!!

I think its upto the muslims themselves to speak up and say "this is islam", rather than expect the layperson to spend his time trying to decide which version of islam is right!

However, I think in the absence of a better term, we are left with "Islamic Terrorism". Can you suggest a more appropriate one?

The tendency to suicide bomb may be an "ideology", but the question is whether the act is sanctioned in Islam - obviously the guy blowing himself up is a nut case, so why should his claims about "religious inspiration" be believed? It would once again be logical to study the source of his claims to determine if he was correct in making that assertion or not.

Well, as I said, for a layperson, who doesn't know much about Islam. He decides what Islam is from its most visible aspects.

Now, there have always been "death cults" in history.

If you read the history of India, you will find several tribes who worshipped certain gods and violence was part of their religion.

But the sheer variety of Hindu beliefs tends to dilute the effect, and prevent all of Hinduism being labeled as a death cult.

I think this debate can go on forever, depending on what your perception of Islam is.

For me, actions speak louder than words, and the very fact that suicide bombing is sanctioned by certain clerics, means that it is possible to interpret the islamic scriptures in that fashion.

Obviously, this couldn't have been a recent development. I"m sure such interpretations of Islam have existed in the past as well, going by the records of Islamic conquerers.

Depends on the kind of "superiority" you are talking about. I would have to read and understand the texts of Hinduism that deal with the subject to see what the context is.

The caste system is quite fascinating actually.

It alllowed foreigners to assimilate easily into Hindu society by immediately assigning them a caste and therefore a place in society.
On the other hand, it kept society relatively divided by drawing rigid barriers between castes.

One can say, that it was an inevitable thing for a sedentary society which was always being attacked from outside.

No - again I disagree - The initial violence was survivalist in nature. It was a minority facing extinction under a ruthless majority. Someone better versed in Islamic history after the initial years could better answer the remainder of your question. The culture of the Arabs was a nomadic, warrior culture - and that is perhaps where you are confusing the two.

Perhaps the Arabic culture has a lot to do with it. Not to mention the culture of Central asians, who were also nomads.

But I think the rapidity with which Islam spread across Asia, points to something more than just survivalist tendencies.

I don't agree because you haven't explained why.

Well, the moment a religion says that their god is the true god, and all other gods are false gods, you are entering a very dangerous territory.

Because, the monotheist will invariably meet people who worship "false" gods.

So what will be his reaction to it?

 

[Flintlock]

Here is a translation of the Chachnama, which is a description of the conquest of Sind:

The Chachnama-An Ancient History of Sind

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Its my opinion that - by trying to establish new religion 'Din-e-elahi', he went away from the basics and spirit of ISLAM religion.

It shows you know nothing of statecraft!

Musharraf is also "going away from Islam" by not supporting terrorists!

So?

Is he a Kaffir?

If so, issue a fatwa!

Religion does not fill the stomach or faces the reality of the world!

Religion is a personal matter and not a matter in governance!

 

[Nafees]

You didn't get my point dear

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I get the point that you are a devout Moslem, who will accept NO deviation even if its is good for mankind.

You are an ideal.

Sadly, life is but a compromise!

 

[Nafees]

In our religion Islam, its a code of life. So we havre to maintain it according to that. Islam relates with every aspect of life. You mixed up Islam with other things. The things are not like that. Again I want to say with respect to other religions that Islam states code of life.

 

[Nafees]

There is no question of deviation in Islam as a religion. Its pure as it is.

 

[Nafees]

Islam was, is , and will always good for mankind.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Pure that your religion is, but is my non believing in any religion whatsoever makes me any different or make my thoughts impure?

Have you noticed the hate from those who claim to be pure, out in this forum?

so, how are they any better than others?

Don't we have the same physical appearance that makes a man?

How is your physical attribute any different from mine?

If you were born in a non Moslem family, would that make you any different, apart from religious reasons?

Between you and me, I think religious dogmas are the most bogus stuff that divides us all.

We are the same!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

In our religion Islam, its a code of life. So we havre to maintain it according to that. Islam relates with every aspect of life. You mixed up Islam with other things. The things are not like that. Again I want to say with respect to other religions that Islam states code of life.

You think that other religions feel that they are the not the code of life?

How about stating that it is indoctrination with no leeway to rational thinking as per the contemporary environment as is propagated in other forums?

To me, personally, I couldn't care less for anyone's religious belief since they are entitled to believe whatever they want and I am no one to impose of force others to believe what I believe!

There has to be freedom of belief since none knows what is really correct!